Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives for WP:PLANTS edit
2004-05 Archives
2006 Archives
2007 Archives
2008 Archives

Contents


[edit] murderous plants

Are "banyan" and "strangler fig" synonyms? For most of last year, there was a proposal to merge the second into the first that eventually fizzled. As a previously uninvolved party, who is obviously partial to one name, I've put forward some sources on Talk:Banyan that I think prove that they are identical. (And also that the current location of Strangler Fig should be a redirect to an article on the species Ficus citrifolia, rather than strangler fig being a redirect to Strangler Fig.) Comments appreciated. - BanyanTree 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they are, but "strangler fig" appears to be a common name for a few select species, so perhaps we should make Strangler fig a disambiguation page and merge the contents into banyan? --Rkitko (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be OK with this. Note that I need to correct myself: F. aurea is the Florida Strangler Fig, while F. citrofolia has an entirely separate common name. That's what I get for taking content on Wikipedia at face value; fixing it now. - BanyanTree 06:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keeler details added

When adding details from a tree book by Keeler, I often find it hard to weave the details with the existing material. The detailed plant descriptions would seem useful for tasks such as identification. So far, I've added a list of details and some other material which sometimes duplicates some existing text. I invite further editing to these articles. (SEWilco 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

If the text of the 1900 book is online, it would be good to link to it, so that people who want the original can just click (that way you don't need to be as worried about making sure every fact in the book is in the wikipedia article). As for how to weave the material, one good start would be to write in sentences and paragraphs, rather than lists and sentence fragments, and tell a story rather than just dump facts onto the page. See for example Wikipedia:Embedded list. Kingdon 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't found an online copy. I'm aware of the preference for prose, which is why I mentioned it. Much of the terminology I don't know well enough to expand upon, but the details seem encyclopedic. (SEWilco 19:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
Sometimes things fall together better than other times. (Sassafras diff) (SEWilco 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
Someone who can estimate the project ratings might want to check those articles to update their ratings. (SEWilco 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
I'd agree it should be converted to prose; it should also be updated to make incomprehensible archaisms understandable in the modern world - MPF 13:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I should change "Corolla: Petals five, white, inserted on margin of the disk, acute, slightly inflexed at the apex, imbricate in bud." to "The part out which the flower explodes, like clowns from a compact car, has the same number of petals as the Pentagon, and they're the same color. They're stuck into the edges of a round thing, really cute, and bent in a bit, like, at the top, you know? Before it explodes like clowns, it's all squished together and overlapping, again like clowns in a compact car." (SEWilco 01:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
Yes, I know you want me to do math. I have time to type the stuff, whatever it is I'm saying. (SEWilco 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
This is a common misconception, that the clowns are overlapping. It actually requires volumetric close packings and contortions more than overlappings. KP Botany 02:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's any help, we have templates to simplify that. Circeus 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, gather them together under Wikipedia:Wikiproject clown topology. (SEWilco 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
Probably need to add their inflexing at the edges, too--I'm sure this is how they get the doors to close. I think we're onto SEWilco's secret identity. KP Botany 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The clowns, thats good...need a good laugh today. "Corolla: Petals five, white, inserted on margin of the disk, acute, slightly inflexed at the apex, imbricate in bud."

How about "Corolla made up of five white colored petals that are inserted on the margin of the disk, the petals narrow, closing together at the ends and folded around each other while in bud, unfolding when opening" I do not know which species you are talking about so some details would need adjusting. Hardyplants 03:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dang that's English. KP Botany 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Aralia spinosa. You mean I figured it out correctly? But I think you omitted being inflexed at the apex; I think I did that once. (SEWilco 04:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

I like Aralia, have two herbaceous species around here and worked at a nursery that sold this species a long time ago (loved the large compound leaves), inflexed at the apex was meant to be covered by "closing together at the ends" but did not turn out as clear as it should have been...the petals close together like a soft drink bottle mouth, being wider in the middle and narrower at the end in this case the bottom of the petals form a narrow tube and flair out to a cup shape and the ends of the cup bend inward some what.

On descriptions I like to start with large structures and work down, so "Flowers in large umbel-like panicles at the ends of stems blooming in July into August. The flowers off white in color, composed of five petals...ect. I think your doing a good job and the information can be rearranged when others have more time. Hardyplants 07:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant families

I was just looking at the Phrymaceae article and thinking about how radically this family has been redefined in recent years (from the single genus Phryma with just a couple of species, to several genera previously included in Scrophulariaceae, now comprising over a hundred species). The two illustrations for the article are of Mimulus (formerly a scroph) but there is no illustration of Phryma itself, the genus that gives the family its name. I would suggest that plant editors push to include an illustration of the "type" genus, if only because this is the only genus that is guaranteed to be included in the family under any circumscription--for example see Scrophulariaceae, where there is an illustration of the genus Scrophularia. MrDarwin 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid consideration (especially for families which have been rearranged a lot), but I'd balance it against things like which plants are well-known, which plants/photos illustrate features of the family, and which ones we have good pictures of. For example, in the case of Lamiaceae everyone has heard of mint but few know what a deadnettle is. Kingdon 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of Wikipedia:Requested pictures? (SEWilco 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Proposal for flowering date categories

As gardeners are interested in when plants flower, I suggest categories for approximate date of flowering. Text on the category pages should say the dates are approximate and point to Season or Growing season for details. If there is an existing article with details on factors which affect local gardens, I haven't found it. Earlier discussion was at [1]. Using the seasonal dates from Season#Meteorological:

Categories for when plants are in flower
Meteorology Months
(North/South)		 Category
Winter Jan/Jul Category:Mid winter flowers
Feb/Aug Category:Late winter flowers
Spring Mar/Sep Category:Early spring flowers
Apr/Oct Category:Mid spring flowers
May/Nov Category:Late spring flowers
Summer Jun/Dec Category:Early summer flowers
Jul/Jan Category:Mid summer flowers
Aug/Feb Category:Late summer flowers
Autumn Sep/Mar Category:Early autumn flowers
Oct/Apr Category:Mid autumn flowers
Nov/May Category:Late autumn flowers
Winter Dec/Jun Category:Early winter flowers

I chose the category name to refer to "flowers" so it applies to any flowering plant; my attention was drawn to the topic while editing trees. (SEWilco 19:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

I changed category names from "fall" to "autumn". (SEWilco 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
I've been thinking about this, and I broadly support the idea. the only problem is, of course, that plants will flower at different times. however, we can go with the main flowering time. After all, gardening books sometimes arrange plants by flowering time, so why can't we? It's only another category after all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs).
This looks fine to me. Calling it "early spring" instead of "March", in addition to dealing with the southern hemisphere, also might help people realize they may need to adjust for climate, whether the plant is next to a house, etc Kingdon 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I like it, but that table will need adjusting, particularly as the months move farther from the solstice. Using the same example of Georgia and Quebec: if something bloooms in late June or early July in one place, it's probably blooming in the other (summer flowers tend to be regulated by daylight hours), but what's blooming in February in Georgia will be buried under snow in Quebec. Same goes for autumn... I'm sure there are both garden plants and wildflowers blooming in Alabama in late November, but not a lot going on in Saskatchewan :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here in the mountainous parts of the US, the season is heavily dictated by elevation - Death Valley's spring *ends* in March, while March is early- to mid-spring in Las Vegas, just a few miles away but 2500 feet higher. I suppose one could explain the conceptual notion of seasons; I once heard somebody say "four consecutive days over 70 deg F" as what was needed to get Mojave annuals to come up. I'm not sure how practical the categorization will be; garden plants are often cultivars not tied to a specific species, but genera are likely to have a broad range of seasons among their members, so you'll get a "every genus in every category" problem. Stan 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A summary of factors might appear in a category page, but I suggest that the Growing season article be expanded to have explanation of factors which affect the growing season of a particular location. (SEWilco 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Threshold for inclusion?

One editor, User:OMGrace, had created dozens of copyvio articles (e.g. Alepidea peduncularis) that I went through and nominated for speedy deletion for reason of copyright violation. Another editor came through and reduced the article to essentially a single sentence and a taxobox. I'm not sure what camp I belong to, deletionist, etc., but should we be creating such articles that don't even meet the stub requirement of a few sentences? I'm just wondering if such articles could potentially be deleted under {{db-context}} because of utter lack of info? Ideally, they would be expanded. I suppose it all depends on whether or not you're an eventualist or a deletionist. Thoughts? --Rkitko (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The speedy deletion criteria is nothing more than a set of conditions under which administrators may presume that the will of the community is to delete, without bothering to ask them via the AfD process. If you're not sure if these articles meet the speedy deletion criteria, then they don't.
Article Alepidea peduncularis provides me with the following information that I didn't know, even after reading the title:
  • It is a plant...
  • ... a flowering plant...
  • ... specifically an Apiaceae.
  • It grows in Africa.
  • It is edible.
  • It has medicinal properties.
  • It was published by Achille Richard.
I rate that a pretty reasonable stub. It would surely fail both the "no content" and "no context" criteria. Hesperian 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. I wasn't going to nominate it since I've seen equally small stubs elsewhere, but I have seen some admins delete articles with just a taxobox and a single sentence (of course I can't find the deletion log now that I'm discussing it). I consider a taxobox to contain quite a bit of information. I suppose this discussion could tie in with an earlier request from a non WP:PLANTS member for examples of the "perfect" plant stub article, Start-class, etc. --Rkitko (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some administrators take liberties with the speedy deletion criteria. I was here when the criteria were formulated, and I assure you it was never meant to be interpreted loosely. Hesperian 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Plus, all species are automatically notable - and also, if you find a stub, expand it. If you think it's a copyvio, rephrase it. This is more constructive than complaining, surely? Totnesmartin 11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My post here is not a complaint but a request for opinions and insight. I normally do just remove the copyvio and try to expand the stubs where I can, but in some cases I believe it to be more productive to strike it all and begin anew. There were so many copyvio articles created by this user, not to mention all of the copyvio text they had added to existing articles. I spent most of my time last night reverting out their edits to existing articles all the way back to February. Another editor came through and removed the copyvio from some of the articles the user had started and that I had tagged with speedy deletion, which was great! But then I wanted to know what others thought about the context threshold, hence this message. --Rkitko (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
sorry if I was grumpy, I'm never ay my best in the mornings... Totnesmartin 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Consider it forgotten. Still good advice, though. Thanks. --Rkitko (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, I have no problem with people tagging copy-vios for speedy deletion, or deleting them on sight in the case of admins. The fact that someone has posted a copy-vio in no way obliges you to clean it up for them. But if someone else is prepared to go the trouble of salvaging them by turning them into stubs, then speedy deletion ceases to be an option. Hesperian 00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
My preference is generally for genus-level, rather than species-level, articles, when the information is going to be this sparse. I have no idea whether that represents a consensus, but there are existing cases where we have the genus article, few if any species articles, and link to the genus article where we might otherwise link to the species. Wikipedia being what it is, it is hard to be rigid about such things, but those are my thoughts. Kingdon 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Come in on this a bit late, but technically, where a page starts with copyvio stuff, it should be deleted (to remove the copyvio entirely from the page history; otherwise it is still lurking there in the history, violating the owner's copyright) and the page re-started afresh with non-copyvio material - MPF 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plants project ratings

Hi all, I've tagged/rated quite a few plant articles with project ratings. Since I got all of the terms from an intro-bio textbook, I rated them all as "high", but feel free to "demote" some of them if you think I've treated their importance level too generously. ;) If I get the time, I might go through a botany textbook for a couple more "mid" importance ratings. - tameeria 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PLANTS images

This article, Trillium cuneatum, includes an image, Image:TRCU.png, that I'm not sure if copyrighted or public domain. Since the PLANTS database has a lot of overlap with plant articles here, I would imagine that this issue has come up before, but I don't know what the result was. If not, the link to the original image is here. It is listed as (c), but since this comes from a .gov, is it really? It looks like it is a dynamic image generated from the GD graphics library, and thus would probably not be covered by copyright, but I don't know for sure. -- RM 15:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This particular image is clearly non-commercial only. From the usage guideline: "may be freely used for any non-commercial purpose. However, any use requires notification of the copyright holder, and commercial use must be disclosed to and conditions of use negotiated with the copyright holder." Will speedy. Circeus 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I admit that the status of images found in PLANTS is sometimes unexpected. Images that one would expect to be PD-usgov are quite often not, which is confusing. Circeus 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
See the licensing on this image too: Image:Saca13-range.png. -- RM 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
These maps are definitely PD-USDA. At worst, they cannot be copyrighted, because they are graphs of known facts with no original work.Circeus 05:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Maps of tree ranges could be created from the data in "Digital Representations of Tree Species Range Maps from "Atlas of United States Trees" by Elbert L. Little, Jr. (and other publications)". (SEWilco 04:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Acer barbatum

Anybody able to dig an image for this article? A quick review before it goes up at DYK would be nice too. Circeus 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Try PLANTS; see their copyright notice. RickJP 08:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but do you really think I did not look? None of the A. barbatum images there are free. Circeus 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone in Florida going to an arboretum soon? (SEWilco 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Silene and Lychnis

Taxonomists seem to widely accept the inclusion of Lychnis into Silene, however, so far, Wikipedia has mostly failed (except for Silene coronaria) to account it properly: Although S. chalcedonica is listed at Silene, it is still located at Lychnis chalcedonica. A merger (with a proper disambiguation page at Lychnis) is needed, but complicated (especially forme, who has relatively limited access to whatever publications are needed. Anybody willing to help? Circeus 01:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protists or plants?

I noticed the bot had added hormosira banksii, a common seaweed (brown algae) to the project scope. Does the project include such life forms? Perhaps some clarification could be made on the project page? Richard001 09:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a mistake resulting from the article being placed in the "Flora of" categories. For the most part, plants are the only things in the flora categories. If you find any more like that, feel free to remove the tag. --Rkitko (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion algae are in botany, they are plants not protista. Hoek, Mann and Jahns (1995). Algae An introduction to phycology. comments: ...the third Kingdom, the Protista. The uncertainties in the classification of these organisations demonstrates that the division of all living things into two kingdoms, plant and animal, is unsatisfactory. I don't agree with Protista - it includes large and microscopic algae as well a single-celled animals. However so what, I am as naught! I am about to retire and will not see the answer to this discussion - unless you comment to me in My Talk.Osborne 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Plant articles needing photos

Perhaps Category:Plant articles needing photos should be mentioned in the project page. (SEWilco 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. All of those categories show up on the navbox I constructed for the new project page. I'd like a few more opinions on the proposed changes before I replace it. It incorporates all of the resources I could find for us. --Rkitko (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories by dates of flowering (again)

I see the roll-out of these categories has begun. All of a sudden I've realised that the total number of flowering plants, divided by twelve, equals 12 absolutely massive and therefore utterly useless categories. Can we discuss this point before taking it any further? Hesperian 00:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the practical use of these categories either. Instead of creating new categories I'd suggest cleaning up the ones we already have. Category:Flowers could use a lot of work. --Rkitko (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The practical use is in comparing whether plants flower at the same time, or at different times. Some people always want flowers in their flower garden. It might be easier to use in a site which has multicategory lists enabled. (SEWilco 08:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
I believe the point is that a category with a million entries will not make such a comparison possible. Hesperian 08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So Category:Trees and Category:People from California are useless because they have many articles in them? (SEWilco 08:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Careful now, I didn't say that the flowers by season categories were "useless", although I may well come to that conclusion once the matter has been discussed. I said that the specific use you have cited is not enabled by large categories, such as these would be. Surely you acknowledge that I can't very easily compare the flowering times of Acacia xanthina and Xanthorrhoea preissii if "A" and "X" are a hundred pages apart. Perhaps you have some ideas on how to resolve this problem. Hesperian 08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is the size of the categories relevant? Those flowering times would only be hundreds of pages apart if you're browsing the category and they both happen to be in the same category and you're not using indexed category pages. You can go to those two articles and look at the bottom for the categories. You can wait for Wikipedia:Category intersection. You can enable whatever feature WikiNews uses for lists with categories of ARTICLE_DATE+SCIENCE+MEXICO. (SEWilco 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Perhaps you'd discover those two plants if you're browsing the categories looking for plants which flower in that month, perhaps because your garden needs a touch of color in that month. Perhaps because you're trying to figure out what kind of plant has an orange flower this month. Is there a Category:Orange flowers? (SEWilco 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Or you're wondering what tree you've seen blooming in November. Witch-hazel, maybe. (SEWilco 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
Good point (and I'm slightly embarrassed to not have thought it through when commenting earlier). Although time of flowering is relevant for a variety of reasons (including identification), it is hard to see how anyone would use these categories (it is even worse than 1/12, because many of the plants categorized so far are in 3 or more categories, and there are more spring and summer flowers than autumn and winter). I could imagine an article like Pine barrens saying what flowers by each month in that particular kind of ecosystem (and likewise for commonly cultivated flowers etc), or maybe there are other ideas, but a global list which shows me that flower A, found in South Africa, flowers at the same time as flower B found in Australia, doesn't really enlighten much. Kingdon 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Do tulips only flower in the Netherlands, England, or Boston? (SEWilco 08:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
I already suggested that "commonly cultivated flowers" could be separate from those which are not. It does seem like Wikipedia:Category intersection would be our best bet (I'm not thinking of other obviously good ways to handle it). Kingdon 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
So we can get non-WP:PLANTS people's opinions, I nominated the categories for discussion. Hopefully we'll get some good opinions. Feel free to opine at will at the discussion. --Rkitko (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you got the opinion of non-WP:PLANTS people and people who don't click links to see what has been discussed. (SEWilco 02:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Category:Flowers

It has been pointed out that Category:Flowers could use a lot of work. What subcategories might the members be migrated to? Flower families, height, colors, soil, moisture preferences? (SEWilco 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Basically, this is a random horticultural category used (and misused) for plants cultivated for their flowers. I suspect that it is best that this category, alongside its child "flowers of Mexico" be nuked altogether and replaced with "Horticultural plants/culture" or something like that, which could then be divided into appropriate stuff. "Flowers" is far too vague to be useful in my opinion. After all, by definition all angiosperms have flowers! Circeus 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
With some renaming and/or clarification it might work. "Plants cultivated for their flowers" or something. Another possible distinction would be "flowers sold in the commercial cut flower trade" or "flowers commonly enjoyed as cut flowers" or some such which would seem to be a decent match for much of what is currently in Category:Flowers. It might be worth seeing how horticulturalists (arboretums, seed catalogs, etc) organize these things. Although they can use the word "flowers" in a botanical sense (for example "flowers are inconspicuous" when describing a plant grown for foliage), that is hardly the only usage, for example "flower garden" as opposed to "vegetable garden". Kingdon 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not suggest such a name as "Plants cultivated for their flowers" because I found it unpalatably long, and "flowers commonly enjoyed as cut flowers" is simply ridiculous and risks sending the WP:OC people in a fit (and I consider myself a WP:OC person...). Circeus 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
How about "Cultivated flowers"? Totnesmartin 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
How about "Floriculture"? Hesperian 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"Cut flowers" seems too narrow if you're trying to define plants enjoyed for their flowers. I think most people would say that tulips are grown for their flowers but they're not popular as cut flowers. Also, the small flowers of the Shrubby Cinquefoil bush are a significant feature of the plant; I don't know of its popularity when cut. (SEWilco 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
Above the thread seems focused on renaming the category as a way to reduce its size. If a bunch of the flowers-by-a-specific-name get a category, does someone notice any other groupings which might help organize the rest? (SEWilco 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
Well, I think the purpose of the category was meant to relate which plants are commonly used in floriculture, so I'd agree with Hesperian's choice of name. As for your question, what others are you speaking of? The ones we'd be cutting from the category because they're not used in floriculture? Or all the other flowering plant articles? We already should be categorizing them in their taxonomic categories. And they're often popularly put into their respective "Flora of..." categories. You're asking about horticultural use? I can't see an easy way to organize those in common-use categories because you'll bump up against two problems: this is an international encyclopedia and plants commonly used one place aren't heard of in another climate, country, etc. and you'll meet resistence when trying to name categories with excessively long names, such as Category:Horticulturally important flowers of Canada and the like. Perhaps I don't understand your vision. Care to elaborate so I can grasp the concept? Right now I'm not sure I see a need for such categories. Lists might better serve the purpose. --Rkitko (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion was oriented toward plants which meet certain criteria, such as those used for "cut flowers", and I was wondering about classifications for other plants or subcats which don't fit a "pretty thing intended for a vase" definition. (SEWilco 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

I just reembered the name I originally wanted to suggest: Category:Ornamental plants. "Flowers" should be dropped entirely. Circeus 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the slightly-more-formal term is "amenity plants". Arguably "amenity" is more inclusive than "ornamental", also taking in plants planted to provide shade, wind protection, a mneasure of security, or to screen an ugly view. Hesperian 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
But "amenity" is FAR larger in scope than "Flowers" is, and the latter is the category we are attempting to deal with.Circeus 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
True. Hesperian 02:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested with donated pictures

Guys - I'm not sure how active this wikiproject is, but I have a job that could use some work. I have three separate galleries of plant pictures I've taken at some point or another. They're all identified and uploaded. They need to be incorporated into their respective articles, most of which do not yet exist. Raul654 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. I've been trying to make time for a trip to an arboretum. I'll probably skim it looking for trees as at the moment I can create articles for some of those. I don't like that "Canadian Goose" plant's outflow, however. (SEWilco 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
Indeed, thanks for the photos! Longwood Gardens is one of my favorite places. I'll soon be moving back to Ohio, so I'll be within range of the Franklin Park Conservatory in Columbus and will have to take many trips for photographs. Thanks again! Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elm hybrids

While following up on Alba (elm hybrid) listed on Category:Plant articles needing taxoboxes, I discovered Elm species, varieties, cultivars and hybrids#Hybrids and hybrid cultivars, which lists large numbers of Ulmus × hollandica cultivars with article names beginning with the cultivar name. In my opinion that is ridiculous, since a cultivar name, like a specific epithet, has no meaning out of context: An appropriate article name would be Ulmus × hollandica 'Alba', for example. But before I start moving these, I wanted to check in to make sure this isn't some sort of horticultural convention in Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark 20:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen one yet, but I was going to suggest we include this in the flora naming convention, along with instructions on article titles for subspecies as well. --Rkitko (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with "ridiculous" (because we can figure out a lot of ways, perhaps context-dependent, to come up with unique article names), but Ulmus × hollandica 'Alba' sounds fine to me. I found at least some precedent: Rosa 'Mister Lincoln'. On the other hand, something like Granny Smith would probably not be such a good choice for including the species name, as the actual species background(s) of this plant is not clear (at least, not based on our article). For things like tomato varieties, it also might be dodgy to rely on registered cultivars - I'm not sure whether your average tomato variety is registered, or whether that concept even makes sense for open-pollinated plants (see List of tomato cultivars). Kingdon 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Granny Smith is well-enough known that Granny Smith (apple) is unnecessary, and in a sense, it is the "common name" of the fruit. I think most plant editors would agree that Biloba (Ginkgo), Kelloggii (oak), or Californicum (fern) would be, if not ridiculous, certainly less than useful, and I see the parallel. I am assuming that all the cultivar names of the elms in question adhere to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, though.--Curtis Clark 14:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosa 'Mister Lincoln or Ulmus 'Tall Green' - these cultivars are correctly named. Genus first then the cultivar name. Subspecies is different because more than one species in the same genus can have the same subspecies name. The list of Tomato cultivars is a bit short, the vast majority of "vegetable" cultivars are open pollinated and a good number are registered and many are protected under the law (both in North America and under International law) against unlawful propagation. Hardyplants 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI new User:Brya sock found and blocked

It seems User:Brya intends to test Wikipedia every few months with a new sock.[2] There may be more out there. I undid category edits, feel free, anyone, to check what should be done about the recat, if anything. Apparently Brya does not intend to be a discrete sock puppeteer. KP Botany 19:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's another one at Groosy (talk · contribs). I reverted those changes (most of them clear cut, although I wasn't sure about the capitalization of Genera in the taxobox at Kingdoniaceae) although I haven't done anything block-related other than posting here. Kingdon 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think all of them need to be identified and tag and a tag put on the Brya's user and user talk page, so that other Wikipedia's can see what's going on. KP Botany 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I also tagged User:Clyb's page, see this edit:[3] for the old familiar, and I asked for this sock puppet to also permanently be banned and I tagged Brya's user and user talk pages with sock puppeteer, this way other wiki users who come to these pages can see what is going on. (Thanks for the signature catch, Kingdon.) KP Botany 05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Brya sock's have been blocked indefinately. Please tag future sock puppets and post on WP:AN/I requesting all sock puppets be blocked as long as Brya continues to use sock puppets to do exactly what caused so much community disharmony in the first place. Again, should it be decided to use italics for higher taxa, this can be done with a bot. Also, as Brya edits extensively on Commons and on other wikis, should the same problems with him/her arise there, the notice of the sock puppetry on Brya's user page and the sock pages will serve as warning to these other wikis of the potential level of havoc they are in for with Brya. KP Botany 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The User:Brya sock puppet check caught 9 more sock puppets, all have been tagged and blocked.[4] Someone had been following the various socks around and changing their edits, as all were bad edits, but a number still need reverted. KP Botany 00:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nominee

Plant defense against herbivory - this has apparently been nominated for GA. Can do with some help. Shyamal 08:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template section conflict

In the article template Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template there are two "History" sections, which causes problems for browsers trying to jump to the second History section. Maybe the Cultivation history section should be renamed. (SEWilco 02:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Doesn't seem pertinent to have an independent section. A section under cultivation covers it most of the times.Circeus 10:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umbelliferae

I'm going around gradually updating these articles: same for the Cruciferae and Polygonaceae families too. If you can help me, leave a message on my talk page. --SunStar Net talk 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive and next featured article

  1. Is anybody up to archiving the page? We could halve the length by archiving January through March.
  2. With Verbascum thapsus featured, I intend to work on Cornus canadensis. Any help or recommendation for sources to look up is appreciated.

Circeus 06:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and archived up through the end of April. Seemed like all of those conversations had stalled. Might be useful to revisit some, though. And excellent job with Verbascum thapsus! Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inflorescence

The article about inflorescence is very inaccurate. I think this is very important for the project (isn't it cited almost in any plant article?) and it should be improved very much. As usual the article about Blütenstand in the German wiki is wundervoll, it could be used as source (look at those schemes!). Aelwyn 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a copy of the German article at User:Curtis Clark/Inflorescence. All the images come through, since they are from Commons. Any of you are welcome to work on that page. My German is not all that great; I usually rely on Babelfish to do the heavy lifting, and then refer to and retranslate the original when the translation doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying that the English article should be a translation of the German, but rather that the translation would be a good place to start, augmenting it with text and photos from the English article.--Curtis Clark 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to translate the first phrase into plain English. But it is very difficult, since many technical terms are not even mentioned in dictionaries, even very specialized ones such as the dictionary of the European Union [5]. Even, while understanding the meaning of the German sentence, it is difficult to transform it into plain and understandable English. It took me almost 20 minutes just to translate the first phrase. Translating the whole article will be an immense task, even for accomplished translators. Perhaps someone from the de.wikipedia can give it a try. JoJan 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps de:Benutzer:Denis Barthel would be able to help. Used to be very active in WP:CPS translating articles. --Rkitko (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've been making faster progress than I expected, not because I know German all that well, but because I know botany. I'm going to start a list of technical terms at the top for which I'm unsure of their English equivalents.--Curtis Clark 19:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not that difficult once you have realised the meaning of the most technical words! I think I could help, maybe translating the part about classical organisation, which I know best, and, of course, with some copyedit! Anyway, I have many irons in the fire, it may take some time, but I would like to help. Aelwyn 10:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Denis Barthel has agreed to proofread the article and to give a hand. Thx for the advice! Aelwyn 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornus canadensis bibliography

Anybody care to review what I have at User:Circeus/Verbascum for any obvious gaps? Circeus 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subgenera, sections, etc. in our naming convention?

I'm beginning to bring forth a lot of the work I've put into my sandbox on the genus Stylidium. As of right now, I haven't been following any specific naming convention (see Repentes, Tolypangium), but I realize other genera may share these subgeneric names (e.g. Verticillatae conflicted with the higher level taxon Verticillatae, a former Brya page and now redirect). Should I continue to create these pages at their given names and disambig. with parenthetical expressions in the title when necessary or should I follow the example of WP:BANKSIA (e.g. Banksia subg. Isostylis, Banksia sect. Oncostylis, etc.)? Should we state our decision here in the flora naming convention? --Rkitko (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the WP:BANKSIA format is the least confusing, and the one less likely to generate all sorts of disambiguation. There's another section Verticillatae in Chusquea, for example, and I am am sure there are several sect. Repentes. Circeus 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the WP:BANKSIA format seems most logical. Unless I'm missing something, the non-Wikipedia world has standardized on a single way of naming sections/subgenera/etc, and writing the names, and we should just follow that (just to pick a random example, the title of [6] refers to "Vaccinium sect. Cyanococcus" rather than, say, "the Cyanococcus section of Vaccinium" or other wordings). Kingdon 17:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Circeus and Kingdon, for the reasons stated.--Curtis Clark 17:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd add maybe a recommendation that a redirect from an unabbreviated version be created, though? Circeus 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the input! I thought about the article titles and problems with disambiguation after I created them. I had seen WP:BANKSIA's work and liked the format, but wanted to make sure there was consensus for it. Thought I'd check here and see if we should place this bit of article naming convention in WP:NC (flora), too. While we're at it, is there any consensus we can come to about cultivar, variety, and subspecies article titles? --Rkitko (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the nomenclature for subspecies and varieties is fairly well defined by the ICBN: e.g. Banksia integrifolia subsp. monticola and Banksia armata var. ignicida.
Cultivars were discussed previously on this page (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive9#Cultivar naming convention); I think there was consensus to use the Banksia 'Celia Rosser' form in general, but I don't see a clear consensus on how to handle well-known plant product cultivars like Granny Smith (cf. Malus 'Granny Smith'). Hesperian 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, do you guys know that the French Wikipedia has adopted an article naming convention that uses the zoological trinomial convention for botanical subspecies and varieties? e.g. fr:Banksia integrifolia integrifolia. I put a forehead shaped dent in my desk when I discovered that. :-( It just goes to show that we have a solemn responsibility to get these nomenclatural issues right. Hesperian 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Different wikis go for different solutions. De: has categories "Man" and "Woman," for example, nothing to fret over. The French wiki also use present tense for historical articles, and places stub notices at the top or articles. Consensus on these topics is only pertinent within a single language community.Circeus 00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The French thing seems to just be for article titles, not in the body of the article. So it doesn't seem like an especially big deal (not sure I would choose/advocate it if I were editing on fr:, but I have my hands full just with en: and a touch of eo:). Kingdon 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Right. I remember those conversations. I assume we have consensus enough to include var and subspecies titles in the naming convention, but one can never be too careful. The article title guideline for cultivars without a well-known, economically or culturally important common name seems appropriate and I believe most editors agreed with that format. Items such as Granny Smith meet our common name exceptions already in place for article titles. How about hybrids? From our discussion above, I am to understand there might be consensus for article titles of hybrid cultivars to follow the general cultivar form of Genus 'Cultivar Name' (unless, of course, the hybrid cultivar meets the general common name exceptions, but I can't think of any off hand). How about natural hybrids that have no cultivar name? Just trying to cover all of our bases and gain consensus for all aspects of the naming convention. From the discussion here, it will be easy to write a proposal to add to the convention, covering all taxonomic article titles. --Rkitko (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Natural hybrid names are included in the ICBN, e.g. ×Fatshedera, Encelia × laciniata. Hybrid formulae are fairly well standardized, for example Encelia ventorum × Encelia palmeri.--Curtis Clark 04:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with the ICBN, though I'm learning as I go. Any suggestions on which form to use as the article title? --Rkitko (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's in Appendix 1.--Curtis Clark 05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So is there a template, of sorts, to be followed in creating hybrid taxoboxes? Mmcknight4 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The cultivar infobox instructions include some information about hybrid cultivars. Others have tried to fit the info into the regular taxobox (e.g. Nepenthes x ghazallyana). --Rkitko (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If we're gonna discuss hybrids, all articles should be at the location with an "x", even though the articles may use "×"? That certainly is the current state of affairs. Redirects may or may not be created, depending on practicality. Note that Nepenthes × ghazallyana is a redlink.Circeus 05:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
So do Palais de Congrès and Palais de Congres mean the same? Although Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters would seem to recommend against "×", the names correctly use the times sign since that's what the code requires. Ideally, the same names with "x" substituted should be redirects. And certainly the "×" should never be substituted with "x" in the body of the article.--Curtis Clark 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
One way or the other doesn't change much, really, but the "x" version has to exist for ease of use: it is very difficult to type a proper times character, and in many cases x's are used informally. Circeus 17:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stewartia vs. Stuartia

While I would like to welcome MPF back to editing in Wikipedia after a long break, I have to object strongly to the move he made by "correcting" the spelling of Stewartia to Stuartia and would like to hear the comments of other plant editors. As this affects a Linnaean name, and a well-known genus, MPF's move is fairly significant. In a nutshell, the spelling Stuartia has been rejected by all recent systematists who have worked on the family Theaceae, including those working on the genus itself. See the talk page of that article for further comments. MrDarwin 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I spent my lunch hour doing a major (if rather quick and dirty) edit that I'm sure MPF won't be entirely happy with. Contrary to his claims that "Stewartia" is in use primarily in American publications and websites, I have been hard-pressed to find any publications, aside from the British sources he cites, that accept "Stuartia" (and even numerous British publications seem to have accepted the Linnaean spelling). It seems that the argument was made and lost long ago that "Stuartia" should be adopted as the correct spelling, perhaps because "Stewartia" continued to be used by Linnaeus himself in subsequent publications, and the original spellings of Linnaean names are generally given great deference (as emphasized in ICBN Art. 60.3, "The liberty of correcting a name is to be used with reserve, especially if the change affects the first syllable and, above all, the first letter of the name", followed immediately by several examples of orthographic "errors" that are not to be corrected). At any rate, the article should be moved back to Stewartia; keeping it under Stuartia gives the false impression that this name has been accepted, when it clearly has not. MrDarwin 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)